Talk:Unnamed civilians
Entry titles These entries for unnamed characters have been created with descriptive titles, and do not necessarily have to be letter-for-letter transcriptions of the characters as they were credited in the Co-star list. A handful of characters are listed as such but certainly not all can be, since many titles would overlap and it would be impossible to link directly to some of them (for example, if there were two different characters credited simply as "Agent" in day 2 and in day 4, the link to Unnamed CTU agents#Agent would always take you to the Day 2 agent because he is first). For this reason I reverted "Woman at Convenience Store" back to "Cigarette shopper". Additionally, to change all these characters' entries to their credited titles would, besides making some linkages impossible, necessitate going back to each time the character is linked and changing the links. This is too many steps backward in my opinion. – Blue Rook 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)talk Sangalan villagers I don't know if this entry will work the way I did it, but I thought that due to the video quality, it would be pretty hard to match each actor to its respective villager. If it's not ok this way, then it could be split for each villager, although assigning each one a picture would then be a problem. I also tried to maintain the structure of the image so people could see it's a TV image, but if it's better to crop each one, then it can be done. Thief12 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) : It's not ideal but I personally can't think of a better option either. It would be great if we could identify these actors but until that happens I like this approach. I think I will arrange the images horizontally though. 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :: These actors were really credited?? --proudhug 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) :::Yep. Thief12 03:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC) :: Weird. :: I'm really against them being included on this page, however. We can't identify who is who and so they're all grouped into one entry, which disrupts the flow of the page and looks hideous. Since we can't verify who matches up with which picture, I don't consider this any different than unidentified credited characters like "Sam's Partner." Anyone agree? --proudhug 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ::: Haven't we covered our bases though by including them all? 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ::: Proudhug if you're still against these being listed here, I have something of a compromise in mind. Otherwise they can just stick around mb. 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC) :: Explain. --proudhug 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC) ::: We make a page called Unnamed civilians/Sangalan villagers where the images and actors get collected, and link it where the right-hand-side image would normally be for a single character entry. This way it isn't ugly, and we develop a precedent for similar situations in the future. It can always be reverted to 5 regular entries if, some day, we figure out who is who. 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::: Any verdict on this idea Proudhug? Also, check out IMDB for Chris Erric Maddox and Artel Great, and we might be able to identify our first villager! They have images now. The problem is I'm not sure about which is the villager we're looking for. 19:47, December 13, 2009 (UTC) That security contractor I think that security contractor was a terrorist,not a civilian.If he was a civilian,i think we can't putMullins and Haigney in the antagonist category : Of course he was an antagonist, but how was he a "terrorist"? Would you call the real-life American Blackwater contractors over in Iraq "terrorists"? Bledsoe's crew is clearly modeled upon a Blackwater-type organization. These guys fight terrorists. : I'm glad someone brought this up. First, remember the difference between an "antagonist" and a "terrorist". The terms are absolutely not identical or interchangeable and in many notable instances they cannot refer to the same character at once. John Reiss was a bastard and Spector was a mercenary and an antagonist, but they absolutely were not terrorists, and each for different motivation-related reasons. Similarly, we have no idea what motivated the infamous Day 6 Sergeant to betray his country. If he believed in Abu Fayed's cause, then he would be considered a terrorist; but it was simply never made clear this was the case. So we put him over in Military personnel because that's all we know for sure about him. : Mullins, Bledsoe, this unnamed guy, and Haigney were antagonistic mercenaries (antagonists) but they were not allied with the terrorists at all, nor are they a different kind of terrorist in their own right. The bottom line here is that civilians can be antagonists, and it's nothing new. Look at the "Male Driver" and the "Racist" on this page, yes? 03:58, May 6, 2010 (UTC) Valet Attendant possible name Hey, I was watching Day 1: 9:00am-10:00am, and as Ted Cofell gets in the lift his assistant says into her headpiece "Hey Lewis, I just wanted to let you know that Mr Cofell is on his way down." Now I realise that Lewis could be anyone, but who else would Nancy be telling that Ted was "on his way down"? If she had said "on his way out", she could have been letting anyone know he was just leaving the building, but her wording implies she's talking to someone down in the basement and that person needs to do something when Ted gets down there. That could only be Mark (Day 1) or the valet attendant in my opinion. And presuming that Mark doesn't go by two names (like Nancy herself does), that would mean the valet attendant is called Lewis. What does anyone think?--Acer4666 20:49, March 7, 2011 (UTC) :Does anyone have a problem with this if I move the guy's information to a Lewis article?--Acer4666 01:07, March 17, 2011 (UTC) :: Sounds very logical, no problems as I see it. Just please take a few minutes and click around to related articles, updating this guy's links as necessary so they point to Lewis instead of his old unnamed entry (after you make the page of course). Nice find on this by the way. 03:51, March 18, 2011 (UTC) Possibly a name I'm not sure if this can be used or not, but since Blue Rook used the imdb name of the Chinese interrogator in the S6 prequel, then maybe we can use this one. I checked on imdb, and according to the credits, infected hotel guest #2 is named Heather. Is this usable? --ASHPD24 05:06, April 25, 2011 (UTC) :That issue is being debated right now at Wiki 24 talk:Canon--Acer4666 13:00, April 25, 2011 (UTC) Rescue Worker The rescue worker played by Cliff Weissman, when Tony speaks to him at the start of episode 4 (my dvd time around 3:07), he says something like "she's bad, Manz". My subtitles say "she's bad, man" but a) sticking an S/Z on the end isn't a mispronunciation you're likely to make and b) It doesn't really fit in the scene that Tony is casually call the worker "man" like two guys have a couple of beers together. I dunno if "Manz" is a name, or if the region 1 subtitles say different, but is anyone able to check it out? thank you!--Acer4666 22:55, August 25, 2011 (UTC) : I listened to this over and over, watching Tony's mouth and everything to get some certainty. What I'm hearing is "she's bad, man" with the electrical arcing/hissing occurring right in the middle of the "man"... this has to be the S sound that you're hearing. To me there is nothing casual about their dialogue either, Tony does sound pretty grave when he talks with this fellow. I do have a habit of calling male strangers "man" myself. I wish I agreed—to get this guy out of Unnamed—but I am not hearing it :( : (Also, on my R1 disc, I am able to run both CCs and subtitles concurrently, and both do say "man" for whatever that is worth.) 20:25, August 26, 2011 (UTC) Cheng's second mercenary : I believe this man is played by stunt actor Chris O'Hara.--Gunman6 (talk) 00:31, October 13, 2013 (UTC) Civilians category In the same vein that we now have categories for medical staff, military personnel, etc., would anyone be opposed to a category for Civilians? It would basically include everybody who doesn't fit into one of the existing characters by profession subcategories. You could also probably justify sticking a bunch of those - medical staff, clergy, news reporters - in there as well. It might not quite adhere to the dictionary definition of "civilian" but it would be a good way to ensure that every character has at least one in-universe category. Also, obviously, any of the named terrorists would be ineligible - maybe another category, Terrorists, which would have all the terrorist group subcategories (Al-Harazi terrorist cell, etc.), as well as any that are lone wolves (Zapata) or are in groups that aren't big enough for their own subcategory? --Pyramidhead (talk) 08:09, July 19, 2014 (UTC) :I don't see the harm in doing it. In fact, I'm surprised it wasn't a category to begin with.--Gunman6 (talk) 06:23, July 20, 2014 (UTC) ::I don't think a civilians category would be a good idea - why is there a need for every page to have an "in-universe" category? Categories are to group together like pages, but this seems like a "miscellaneous" category for everyone that is left and doesn't have anything in common. I don't see that we need to duplicate the unnamed characters pages in category form, especially as this page is an "everybody else" page for the misfits--Acer4666 (talk) 11:35, July 23, 2014 (UTC) :::Because it's easier to navigate if you want to find the named civilian characters and it never hurts to outdo one's self in making a wikia more helpful than needed.--Gunman6 (talk) 18:54, July 23, 2014 (UTC) :::Think of it as the analogue to Federal agents, wherein you have a bunch of subcategories for agency and nationality, while everyone who doesn't belong under one of those gets put into the top-level category. I think it may be possible to eventually have just a handful of subcats under Characters by profession - like, say :::*Civilians :::*Terrorists :::*Military personnel :::*Government officials :::*Federal agents :::That would be a bit cleaner than it is now. Mind you, there are some categories where the lines have gotten blurred - flight personnel now has both military and civilian pilots, which was an oversight on my part. But once those are cleared up I think this would be a good way to unify everything. There's no need to have every page in an IU category, but I'm fairly sure that every character we've seen so far could be slotted under one (or more) of those five. --Pyramidhead (talk) 21:16, July 24, 2014 (UTC) ::::I like it more when you compare it to a kind of "parent category with a few lone ones that don't fit in" - and think that would work well for terrorists, for lone wolves like Zapata. ::::It's just because "civilians" is is such a broad category, it wouldn't just have a few odds and ends that needed categorising, it would have a whole load of people in it that don't really have anything to do with each other. It's kind of like a "human beings" category! But I am more amenable to the category now I see how the structure of those categories would work; if no-one else is opposed I'd say go for it--Acer4666 (talk) 21:36, July 24, 2014 (UTC) :::::Funny enough, compared to many wikis we're pretty light on absurdly broad categories - just have a gander at Humans or Males! As long as we exclude anyone who ever fit one of the other four categories or subcategories, I don't think it will get unreasonably big. --Pyramidhead (talk) 22:34, July 24, 2014 (UTC) Moderator Appearances I assume Mark Thompson is only credited as the moderator for the two appearances live at the debate in Season 3; however, I added him to the character appearances chart because I believe I saw him on live TV in the two episodes immediately following the debate. Can anybody else confirm or deny those two live TV appearances?--Sampson789 (talk) 17:16, July 30, 2014 (UTC) Did anybody else notice the moderator providing commentary/analysis on live TV in the two episodes immediately following David Palmer's abrupt exit from the debate? I'm pretty sure it was him in the first episode after the debate, and I think it looked like him in the episode after that one, too.--Sampson789 (talk) 03:47, August 1, 2014 (UTC) The Handler: Move to unnamed characters discussion : see: Talk:The Handler Civilian antagonist category? What would you guys think of a category for civilian antagonists that includes antagonists who are civilians unaffiliated with any of the other "Antagonists by affiliations" category? People like Gary Matheson, Male driver, Teenager 1, Kevin Wade, Frank Allard and the Day 2 racists would go here. I wanna start this category but I'd love your guys' thoughts first. Again, the criteria would be an antagonist who is A, a civilian, and B, not affiliated with any group in the Category:Antagonists by affiliation. You agree?--SuperbowserX (talk) 05:50, April 12, 2016 (UTC) :It's annoying because Wikia used to have a "category intersection" tool that would allow you to view all pages in say, civilians AND antagonists. :However, manually making these connections by combining existing categories together I do not think is a good idea. As I think I said on another talk page, this could be precedent for all sorts of other random pairwise combinations of existing categories. Do you see my worry about it?--Acer4666 (talk) 17:32, April 12, 2016 (UTC) :: Yeah. Wikipedia has the categ intersection, but Wikia doesn't for some reason. :( And... I'm not sure what you're saying about "combining existing categories" together. I get what you're saying, but as a counterargument, I'm not sure. Could you reiterate?--SuperbowserX (talk) 17:41, April 12, 2016 (UTC) : As in, when I look at a character's categories and see "Antagonists", "Civilians", "Civilian antagonists", it comes across as redundant over-categorisation - nothing is added by the "civilian antagonist" category. Additionally nothing links these people together, whereas the other Category:Antagonists by affiliation categories link connected people part of the same group. It's true that "civilians" categ was made as a catch-all list of everyone else who was not linked, however that was out of desire to give every character at least one in-universe category. "Civilian antagonists" is kind of a weird mix of in-universe and out of universe aspects together.--Acer4666 (talk) 17:50, April 12, 2016 (UTC) :: In the specific context of 24, civilian antagonists are not very common. This categ would contextualize them. Kind of like the "Female antagonists" category; it's not too common for antagonists to be female, which is why this category contextualizes them. Likewise, antagonists are not typically civilians, so this categ contextualizes them. Your point that it might begin to oversaturate category pages has some basis, but still.--SuperbowserX (talk) 18:13, April 12, 2016 (UTC) :I would probably also argue for the removal of the female antagonists category. Again they're fairly disparate characters, and also we have a whole article listing female antagonists that the category just reproduces. :The ones thing female antagonists has on civilian antagonists is that it does add some info, in that there isn't already a "female" category. Whereas we already have "antagonist" categories and a "civilians" category, and I think it's arbitrary to pick two existing categories and create another with the intersection of the two. I could do it for arbitrary other categories, and I'm not sure the small number of them is reason enough for a category to be made--Acer4666 (talk) 22:36, April 12, 2016 (UTC)